Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypnotized (Fleetwood Mac song)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hypnotized (Fleetwood Mac song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. B-side of a single which did not chart anywhere, and seems to fails WP:NSONGS. Prod remover claimed notability on the grounds of radio play - this is unverified. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This has received steady airplay since the 70s, but more sources are needed. This rock anthology places it #643 in the top 1,000 songs ....in fact, a reference already in the article credits airplay of Hypnotized as the likely reason for Mystery to Me having received a gold album; that's the verification for its extensive radio play. Should not be considered for deletion. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point out exactly where that is claimed in the reference? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the second of five mentions in the book, page 125: . 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean "It could not have been more perfect as a product for the new radio dimension"? That is not referring to "Hypnotized" - the book has moved on to the Buckingham Nicks era by page 125.Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No: "In November, their three-year old record Mystery to Me was awarded a gold album, likely due to the extra airplay the song Hypnotized was getting." Page 125. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't see where that is. Even so, WP:NSONGS says nothing about airplay. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This ref calls it the album's best track . 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not infer any wider notability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's deemed the best song on a gold album by a major group, I think it does. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So the "best" song on every gold album is notable? Hardly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think at this point I can turn up a golden egg and it won't matter. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Fleetwood Mac have recorded many notable songs, and this isn't one of them. Show me something that would not fit in just as well at Mystery to Me. Incidentally, the article claims that the song was better received at concerts in the US than in the UK - the reference does NOT say that. It's talking about the band's musical direction generally. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A song receiving mention in multiple reliable sources and being covered by another notable band are criteria noted at WP:NSONGS. The statement 'Fleetwood Mac have recorded many notable songs, and this isn't one of them' is based on what source? 99.155.207.91 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NSONGS says "released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups" - not just one solitary cover version. Thousands of songs have been covered once. These mentions are trivial mentions, as specifically outlined in WP:GNG to be not enough. It says "sources address the subject directly in detail" and "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" - 643rd in somebody's list of 1000 "great" songs fails both requirements, as does the reference to Benifold, where dozens of songs were written, and the simple description of the song.
 * In the "Reception" section, only the first sentence has any sourced relevance - the rest is either unconnected trivia or unsourced. I could write a similarly sourced article on practically every song on Mystery to Me, particularly using the Rooksby book, which has a section on every song Fleetwood Mac ever recorded. The statement you quote is my statement, I clearly didn't attribute it to anyone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll agree to having different interpretations of the guideline, and I'm by no means a strong inclusionist. If unattributed points of view may be entered, I believe it was a notable recording at that early point of their career, and submit that this has been verified by several sources. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much interpretation involved in saying that "one" does not equal "several", but we'll have to agree to disagree. Let's see if anyone else has any opinions. I will say that the ASCAP award reference you've just found is the first remotely relevant piece pointing to any notability for the song, but in my opinion it's not enough. Bob Welch (musician) would be a better place for that info since it deals with two of his songs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Recognition of a song's 25 years of airplay is a bit more than remotely relevant. Agreed re: others' opinions. We've both spent plenty of cyber-ink on this, and there's nothing like a good rhubarb to entice others to the party. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They're reliable enough, but how do they infer notability? How does this article pass WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;"In November, their three-year old record Mystery to Me was awarded a gold album, likely due to the extra airplay the song "Hypnotized" was getting."&mdash;RJH (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Likely"? Or maybe not? That's as shaky a reference as any I've seen - it can't even pretend to be sure of what it's saying. With respect to the author, there's no basis for that assumption. I'd say it was far more likely due to people buying older albums on the strength of the recent Fleetwood Mac album. Future Games went gold as well, but nothing to do with radio airplay, because it didn't get much of that. And I ask again, what has airplay got to do with WP:NSONGS? Seriously, on this basis, the majority of Fleetwood Mac songs would be notable enough for articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The author, if we accept him as a reliable source, wrote 'likely', which is what it is: meaning not 'shaky', but probably. Your observation re: impact of sales of the 1975 album may be correct, but at the moment it's original research. Airplay doesn't itself meet guidelines, but it's a secondary supporting factor, strengthened by the ASCAP recognition. Re: the majority of FM songs: if they've received coverage from multiple sources, then they may well merit articles. I won't pretend to be as knowledgeable about the group as is Bretonbanquet, and have no personal investment in this, just believe a rationale for notability exists. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But he didn't back it up with any supporting evidence. Just because he's had a book published, doesn't make his original research any better than anyone else's - it's just a passing, unsupported trivial reference. The airplay is the only factor, as the ASCAP award is for airplay - and it's actually awarded for two songs, not just "Hypnotized". The other song was "Sentimental Lady", which was released as a single by two artists and reached #8 in the US chart, therefore quite reasonably would have received by far the most airplay of the two. "Sentimental Lady" is quite obviously a notable song on many counts. The ASCAP award isn't a major award as outlined in WP:NSONGS - it isn't clear but I take a "major award" to be a big award-ceremony type award such as a Grammy, Ivor Novello or a Brit or something. A band like Fleetwood Mac has practically all their songs played on the radio. I do know a bit about the group, and I do like the song, but I don't see where its individual notability lies. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Without nullifying any of your points, or questioning your knowledge of the subject, what I'm noticing on this page is a tendency to value your interpretations at least as much as those of published sources--it seems that the references, both those I've provided and those that already existed within the article, answer at least some of the concerns, yet each is in turn found wanting. Perhaps other editors will agree that notability has not been established...I know a little about other disciplines, but hopefully will not characterize published content with which I disagree as unreliable unless I can provide published content to the contrary. Relying on my own findings, well-researched as they are, is not acceptable. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the Wikipedia mantra that dictates that as long as something has been independently published, then it must be true. Unfortunately I can't do anything about that, and I'm really not suggesting the other sources are unreliable, but I do think that this particular reference that makes a passing trivial mention of the song and says it "likely" achieved something that is totally immeasurable anyway, is useless. Regardless, the point he makes doesn't make the song notable according to the guideline. I'm certainly not relying on my own findings or pushing any point of view of my own, I just want to see something that makes this song notable and satisfies the notability guidelines. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - due to failing WP:NSONGS. I actually have no issue with songs that fail this provided that they clearly have a significant amount of coverage on their own to establish notability. Preferably, however, this would actually consist of sources where the song is the main subject, not one sentence mentions. The sources found so far seem to be limited to a few sentences or so that mention the song, or a review of it in a review of an album as a whole. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A valid point, except I suspect that few songs, even many we'd probably agree are notable beyond doubt, are ever the main subject of an article. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't own the books listed, but the allmusic review of the song is hardly a one sentence mention and the song is certainly the main subject. Rlendog (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, it just needs more refs, i added one from the ALLmusic guide, which singles out this song on the album. However, i suspect that Yaksar is correct, and what i have found is not enough, as these mentions are not full reviews of the song. I know we have probably tens of thousands of articles on albums and songs much less notable than this song, but i also know thats not an argument for including this article. well, i tried. a google search for the strings: hypnotized "fleetwood mac" "mystery to me" yield, to my reading, just enough significant hits to show the song has been talked about. its borderline, i know, but since i KNOW it got MASSIVE fm play in the 70's in N Cal, there will eventually be a source for that fact, in the meantime, it passes notability on what i can find.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that it got a lot of play on the radio back then, but according to the guideline, that doesn't infer notability. Either the guideline is followed or there's no point in having the guideline. Plenty of albums aren't particularly notable, you're right, but those album articles can be filled out with information about the songs to create a really decent, readable album article. All of the info that's currently in this song article should go in Mystery to Me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is one of the best known pre-Buckingham/Nicks Fleetwood Mac records.  Sufficient sourcing is already presented in the article (the "external links" should not be ignored) and there's lots more potential sourcing at GBooks.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from your first statement, which is patently untrue, all this wonderful sourcing is tiny bits and pieces - mere mentions. Again, where is the notability? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the external links - what is the third link actually doing? It's a link to a book about Guns 'n Roses - what is its relevance to "Hypnotized"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read it? It makes direct though passing reference to Bob Welch's songwriting, specifically mentioning Hypnotized. If you think it's irrelevant you can delete it. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're at cross purposes somehow - all I can see on that page is a description of the book. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I click on the link it takes me here: ; if you're not seeing it I'll transcribe the text, but not for a while....dinner is in the offing here, and as it is I've been running back and forth from the kitchen all day, where my girlfriend can't believe I'm engaged in this discussion.... 99.155.207.91 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was seeing, but I've just got a precis of the book and a lot of reviews. Let me know what it says, when you're ready of course. Real life is always more important. And I can't believe it either ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Real life is marginally more important, but I confess this is fun--I'm back as a different IP because the power went out briefly, as it's wont to do in the country. The narrator, Steven Adler of Guns N' Roses, reminisces about Bob Welch: 'Check out his stuff on Fleetwood Mac's Bare Trees and Mystery to Me albums. This is when the band still flexed its blues roots, and Bob penned and sang some incredible lyrics, among them "Hypnotized" and the aforementioned track "Sentimental Lady." 99.184.134.105 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is fun in a masochistic sort of way.. hahah.. that is a relevant quote, but I'd say it was more relevant at Bob Welch's article, as it's specifically about his songwriting rather than one particular song. Lots of good sources are being found, but I don't know that any of them establish notability for "Hypnotized". But not too many people agree with me at the moment, so we'll see ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I understand your valid points, which may well take precedence. And since when is the majority always right? 99.184.134.105 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The song seems to have plenty of sources to satisfy WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG, including its own allmusic review. It has been covered at least by Fleetwood Mac and The Pointer Sisters, and possibly others .  I don't see a problem here. Rlendog (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It has its own review on Allmusic, I didn't realise that, but that is the only source here that goes any way to meeting WP:GNG, and that requires multiple sources with "significant coverage" which is "more than a trivial mention". All other sources are trivial mentions, and notability isn't about one sentence mentions in various sources. It wasn't covered by Fleetwood Mac, it's their song. The covers appear to be the Pointer Sisters and possibly a couple of modern ones - not sure how notable those artists are. The other point is that this article will never be more than a stub. Remove the uncited stuff and all that remains is a description of the song, a review and the fact that it was played on the radio a bit, all of which can be merged into Mystery to Me. What actual substance is there of any note? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not often I feel justified in questioning a nominator's judgement, but I think this qualifies: "So the "best" song on every gold album is notable? Hardly." Much of the rest of the nom's comment here is contentious and verging on WP:BLUDGEON as well. :I call AllMusic etc AllFail, as their coverage of the notable is entirely unreliable. I was surprised to see that they did cover this, frankly. I hate to say it, but for WP to use AllMusic as a standard for inclusion at AfD is somewhat erroneous, although not nearly as erroneous as using AllMusic as a standard for deletion. Certainly more erroneous than using IMDB as a source for trivial facts. Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also note that WP:NSONGS is an axe-grinding mess; it has paragraph-long assertions that contradict WP policy, despite the presence of said WP policies right next to them, and paragraph-long mini-essays in footnotes.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are able to question my judgement, then I can question yours. To take a random assessment of the "best" song on an album and thus automatically claim it as notable shows a surprising lack of thought. How on earth can Wikipedia decide on the best song on any album? Maybe you'd like to extrapolate on my "contentious" comments, or retract your accusation. All my comment here has been aimed at trying to get people to address the notability question, something which you also have not effectively attempted to do, in fact you undermine it with your unsubstantiated attack on Allmusic, the very source which claims this song to be the best on the album. You say the source is unreliable, so which source for the "best" song on the album would you like to take? I don't know who you're criticising for using Allmusic as a standard for deletion, because I have not done so. In my last post, I did quite the opposite. Amid your contradictions, I struggle to see why you want to keep this article. Any problems with WP:NSONGS is not an issue for this page, and it is all we have, bar WP:GNG, which this article still does not pass. It will undoubtedly be kept, maybe more one-line trivia will be added to it and it can reach GA. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.